In this study, I reflect critically on my own experiences as a university teacher of students’ expressed knowledge about the academic subject of didactics at the beginning and end of their first semester as students in the Master’s Programme in Didactics. My reflections are made using a phenomenographic approach to learning, which regards learning as a qualitatively deeper and different way of understanding content. The results of the study are expected to deepen my understanding of knowledge expressed about didactics in two different student groups, and give insight on what is critical for knowledge development in higher education. The first course design consisted of 12 lectures in total by 12 different teachers representing different fields of didactics, such as general didactics and subject-based didactics in different specializations. The second course design consisted of eight seminars where course literature about didactics was discussed, together with three seminars in smaller groups wherein the students in each specialization of didactics met. A comparison between the groups is made, based on a qualitative analysis of the responses on an open question before and after the first semester forms the basis of my own reflections. The analysis aims to establish in what way the students’ explanations of didactics might have changed during the courses, and if there are differences in this development which could be explained by differences in course design. In the first student group, 10 students (in-service teachers) answered both questionnaires, and 11 students in the second group answered both questionnaires.

In this article, the author seeks to investigate the interplay between space, interaction and learning sequences in higher education. She argues that space is an important part of designs for learning, where the building and the rooms are parts of the framing and the conditions for learning; furthermore, she discusses space as a resource in the meaning-making process, considering space as a significant part of designs in learning. The analysis builds on the concept that we can read space as three-dimensional text, using Halliday’s metafunctional theory to understand meaning potential in a space. The article also draws on a design-oriented perspective called ’Designs for Learning’ and demonstrates how we can understand space as being a part both of designs for learning and of designs in learning.

This study explores differences between different groups of Swedish independent schools' work with pupils in need of special support (PNSS). Data comes from a total population study of independent schools. Data is analyzed using six categories of profile that may affect the special educational values at the schools, and therefore the situation for PNSS. Additionally, the data is analyzed with regard to the school ownership structure. Results show that diagnosis is important for receiving support, despite contrary legislative intentions. The groups differ regarding proportions of PNSS (12-100%), incidence of refusals of admission (8-40%), and in the way they explain problems and organize support. Generally, there is little challenge to a deficit perspective in views on school difficulties and the organization of support; market rationality may be a contributing factor. There are more differences between educational profiles of schools than there are between types of school ownership.